Online communications platforms have a First Amendment right to choose what content they host. Yet in the last few years, Republicans at the federal and state level have distorted this well-established right in order to justify efforts to force social media platforms to host content that the government favors. A much-needed victory for internet freedom came from the Eleventh Circuit this week, when a three-judge panel unanimously rejected one of these Republican-led efforts. The decision repudiated the flawed legal theories offered in support of both Florida’s law and others like it.
The law at issue, SB 7072, was enacted by Florida last year to prevent the alleged “silencing” of conservatives by “Silicon Valley oligarchs.” Under the law, social media companies are required, among other things, to host all content from registered political candidates and “journalistic enterprises,” regardless of whether that content violates the platform’s terms of service. The law authorizes penalties of up to $250,000 for each instance of noncompliance.
NetChoice and CCIA, two trade associations of online businesses, sued Florida immediately after the law’s passage, arguing that the law violated platforms’ First Amendment right to choose what speech they publish. A district court agreed and preliminarily enjoined the law. And now, in a well-reasoned 67-page opinion, the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed that injunction of all of SB 7072’s content-moderation provisions. In the process, the court reaffirmed three critical First Amendment principles and corrected Florida’s misconceptions of First Amendment doctrine.
Read the rest of this post →